Posted on 10/10/2005 7:00:49 AM PDT by conservativecorner
AS WE AWAIT President Bush's nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, all the talk is about precedent. Roe vs. Wade. What does a judge do when a precedent is based on shaky legal ground? The Ginsburg Precedent: How much does a nominee have to answer, and how do you draw the line? Yet the most important precedent hasn't been mentioned: the Clinton Precedent.
To refresh our memories, President Clinton had a chance to make two appointments to the Supreme Court. The first came with the retirement of Justice Byron White, a conservative who cast one of the two votes against Roe vs. Wade. And just one year before his retirement, White, joining three other justices, dissented in the 5-4 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey, which reaffirmed the basic holding in Roe.
ADVERTISEMENT
With the court so closely divided, what did Clinton do to preserve the balance? Did he replace White with another conservative, someone equally clear that there is no constitutional protection for abortion? He chose the former general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, a leading liberal law scholar whose special interest was women's rights: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Any question how close she was going to be to White?
The president did what presidents always do. He picked someone he thought would be a good justice according to his own views. He didn't worry about preserving the balance on the court, and he certainly didn't worry about maintaining the court's division over abortion.
With a 56-44 Democratic majority in the Senate, Clinton didn't worry about much other than replacing White with someone his party approved of and the GOP would credit as sufficiently accomplished to do the job. Ginsburg, the strongly pro-choice liberal judge and former law professor, fit that bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Because back then, it would never have occurred to the GOP to filibuster a judicial nominee.
But the Dems subsequently did just that once they became the minority in the Senate and a pubbie became president.
And seven RINOs sandbagged us when the Senate GOP leaders tried to take away judicial filibusters.
So things have changed JUST A TAD since then.
Arlen Sphinctre, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, McLame ...
Clinton didn't worry about much other than replacing White with someone his party approved of and the GOP would credit as sufficiently accomplished to do the job. Ginsburg, the strongly pro-choice liberal judge and former law professor, fit that bill.
-------
Politics over the people...it just seems to keep winning, doesn't it...
The RNC just called me this morning asking for a donation. I told them that after 6 years of donating so that GWB can be President, I was no longer donating as long as that man is in the White House. He betrayed conservatives who were promised a Justice like Souter and Thomas.
SCALIA and Thomas, sorry...
Who gave us Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of New York, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, vice Byron R. White, retired.
Vote Counts: YEAs 96
NAYs 3
Not Voting 1
YEAs ---96
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boren (D-OK)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brown (R-CO)
Bryan (D-NV)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (D-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cohen (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
D'Amato (R-NY)
Danforth (R-MO)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeConcini (D-AZ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-KS)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durenberger (R-MN)
Exon (D-NE)
Faircloth (R-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Ford (D-KY)
Glenn (D-OH)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Heflin (D-AL)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
Mathews (D-TN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Metzenbaum (D-OH)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Mitchell (D-ME)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nunn (D-GA)
Packwood (R-OR)
Pell (D-RI)
Pressler (R-SD)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Sasser (D-TN)
Shelby (D-AL)
Simon (D-IL)
Simpson (R-WY)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Wallop (R-WY)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wofford (D-PA
NAYs ---3
Helms (R-NC)
Nickles (R-OK)
Smith (R-NH)
bookmark for later
I am going to trust GWB's judgement on this one, partly because I have to, but also because that's why I voted for him - twice.
But, we're talking about Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Leahy.
Scoundrels every one.
I have no problem with Roberts. Miers is another story.
Wait a minute, this cannot be.
In the LA Times??
Written by the dean of the Boston Law school?
Blasphemy!
Of course, those rinos in the senate had NOTHING to do with it.
It's Bush's FAULT!!!!
If the Democrats on the judicial committee were fair and honorable men, they would only consider whether a nominee was qualified, as the Republicans did with Ginsburg.
-----
But the Thugocrats are not honorable, nor is their real agenda, which includes putting liberal activists like Ginsberg on the SCOTUS. And Ginsberg was anything but an unbiased selection -- worked for the ACLU? Give me a break. Hard, hard left. And limp Repubs approved her.
While Meirs is certainly not in the image of either Scalia or Thomas, as Bush promised, she still may be a good, law-abiding justice, albiet the accolades from the left about her selection still has me VERY WORRIED. If Bush had picked the BEST candidate, there would be no worry from Constitutional conservatives like myself as well as many others.
I still see it as Bush avoiding THE FIGHT that must happen to put the libs in thier place once and for all. The fight for what is right for America, and not Washington politics.
And, once again, we had that fight a few months ago, over the nuclear option. Had that fight gone down, there would be no judicial filibuster.
But during the battle, seven RINOs on our left flank cut and ran. And I don't think Bush cares to go back out onto the same battlefield with the same RINOs on his flank.
Look, Miers could show she is not suitable for the court for this limited-government conservative. But I've felt for years that we don't need over-educated mandarins on the court - we need people who can render plain decisions after reading the plain language of the Constitution, instead of finding penumbras that are not there while ignoring meaning that is clear.
Miers may or may not be that person. But I refuse to buy into the notion that someone who has spent just about their entire career in government through a progression of clerking, prosecution and then judgeships is the only person fully qualified to be on SCOTUS. There is a private sector out there that has been shut out of concern during rulings. That needs to change.
BTTT
"I have no problem with Roberts." - Lunatic Fringe
Please read the second-day transcript of the Roberts Senate hearings. Look at his comments on precedent, stare decisis, and orginalism. Roberts actually states he is NOT an originalist and he gives himself plenty of room to vote for abortion, racial quotas, whatever.
This Miers fiasco just confirms that Bush is saying to Conservatives, "Regarding the Supreme Court, no originalist need apply."
But during the battle, seven RINOs on our left flank cut and ran. And I don't think Bush cares to go back out onto the same battlefield with the same RINOs on his flank.
-----
And we need to make sure that those seven traitors are remembered when the votes go down in 2006.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.